Days after the United States State Department blacklisted a group of Russian officials involved in perpetrating the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, the “reset” in relations between Russia and the US appears to be on the verge of faltering – despite general sentiments of improvement.

As Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports:

The White House touts its “reset” policy toward Russia as one of its key diplomatic successes. But the Russian authorities were caught off-guard when Washington quietly barred some of their officials from traveling to the United States this week, a move that threatens to undo some of the gains Washington has made boosting ties with Moscow.

The State Department blacklist targets those connected to a scandal that’s drawn widespread international condemnation: the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer jailed in 2009 after accusing police of bilking the government of more than $200 million. A report commissioned by President Dmitry Medvedev himself concluded Magnitsky was denied medical care and probably severely beaten before he died.

Magnitsky’s supporters have been lobbying Western countries to ban Russian officials implicated in Magnitsky’s death.

But speaking on a talk show on Ekho Moskvy radio, Leonid Slutsky, first deputy chairman of the Russian Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said he couldn’t believe the United States went ahead and did it, adding the information could have been made up as a provocation to harm ties.

The Kremlin soon reacted more strongly. Medvedev’s spokeswoman told the “Kommersant” newspaper the president was preparing retaliatory steps. “We were bewildered by the State Department’s action,” she said, adding that nothing like it happened “even in the deepest years of the Cold War.”

Ironically, the blacklist appears to have been intended to head off an effort to impose even stronger sanctions. A group of U.S. senators is sponsoring a bill that would include more Russian officials, freezing their U.S. assets in addition to denying them visas.

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal “Russia in Global Affairs,” said the nuance seems to have been lost on Russian officials. “Everybody expected the U.S. Senate to act,” he said, “but the preventive or preemptive measure by the State Department was quite unexpected.”

Other signs of fraying ties emerged this week. Senator Jon Kyl (Republican, Arizona) has called for more investigation into a recent bomb blast outside the U.S. Embassy in Georgia that U.S. intelligence officials say may have been linked to a Russian agent. In Brussels on July 28, the Russian ambassador to NATO dredged up old complaints about plans for a U.S. missile-defense shield in Europe.

While relations between the two sides often appear precarious, the latest developments mark the biggest challenge to President Barack Obama’s Russia “reset.” The White House says its policy has delivered major gains for U.S. national security, including Russian cooperation over Afghanistan — for which Moscow is well-paid — help over sanctions against Iran, and the signing of the new START nuclear-arms treaty.

Another sea change has been much less visible. Under Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, cooperation between diplomats on various levels all but ended in favor of a direct dialogue between presidents. Much was made of their personal relationship, but when Bush left office, relations stood at Cold War lows.

The bureaucratic ties have since been restored. Russian diplomats say collaboration with their U.S. counterparts is even better now than in the relatively friendly 1990s. If decisions at top levels once took many weeks to implement, now agreements such as a recent deal over U.S. adoptions of Russian children can be put in place more quickly.

But top Russian officials threatened to curtail cooperation on Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea over the Senate’s Magnitsky bill, according to a leaked State Department memo that first made the blacklist public on July 26.

Although the memo argued against stronger measures, political expert Andrei Piontkovsky said he thinks the Russian threats may have had the opposite of their intended effect. “My reading of this development is that people at the very top,” he said, “maybe the president himself, were shocked by such [direct] language and decided not to submit to blackmail.”

Observers said that although the memo was probably leaked to show the White House to be keen on protecting relations, the blacklist was nevertheless evidence of a significant change in Washington.

Masha Lipman of the Carnegie Center said it poses a challenge to the Russian leadership, shown to be unable to protect loyal officials from punishment abroad. “By now it’s well known denying visas to Russian officials is a sensitive spot that could potentially expand to other countries, to Europe,” she said, “which may be more important to Russian officials.”

The blacklist has been praised by Russian human rights activists and other critics who worry Washington has sacrificed support for Western values in favor of better relations with the Kremlin.

The U.S. action may help usher in a new, potentially rockier phase in the relationship. While the fate of the Senate’s Magnitsky bill remains unclear, the Russian parliament has been preparing its own bill in response.

But few believe cooperation over important issues will be affected. The Carnegie Center’s Lipman pointed out that previous incidents that could have worsened relations, such as revelations from U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks and Washington’s expulsion of 10 Russian intelligence agents last year, did not visibly affect ties.

Lukyanov of “Russia in Global Affairs” agreed the blacklist won’t change the nature of relations. “Of course it won’t contribute to a better relationship,” he said, “but I don’t think it will damage much because in areas where Russia and the United States cooperate now — like Afghanistan, nuclear disarmament, even Iran — both sides are interested in it.”

But Lukyanov said that even if relations suffer, Russian and U.S. politicians are focused on presidential elections in each of their countries next year, and will make no significant moves until 2013.

The detentions began on Monday, when a group of opposition activists, journalists, and other supporters were standing in a line outside a Moscow detention facility, where opposition leaders Boris Nemtsov, Ilya Yashin, Konstantin Kosyakin, and Eduard Limonov are currently sitting out short-term jail sentences. The four were arrested in connection with an unsanctioned rally in defense of free assembly held on New Year’s Eve, and received sentences from between 5 and 15 days each.

The supporters had lined up to take turns holding solitary pickets – the only form of protest legally allowed in Russia without prior government approval. However, a police bus soon arrived and the awaiting protesters were taken to a police station.

“They detained us on Simferopolsky Bulvar near the detention center,” Aleksandr Rybkin, a leading member of the Solidarity opposition movement, told Interfax. “Twenty people were standing at the bus stop; we said we were going to replace one another in a solitary picket. The OMON simply surrounded us and shoved us into the bus. Now we’re being sent to some unknown place.”

According to Gazeta.ru, one Ekho Moskvy journalist was among those detained.

On Tuesday, pickets and arrests both continued, but with a twist: this time, said Other Russia activist Nina Silina, members of the Kremlin-backed youth movement Nashi joined the solitary picketers, thus nullifying the solitary – and legal – nature of the demonstration. Police arrested the picketers, Nashi members, and all activists lined up on the side waiting their turn to picket.

All detainees were released on Tuesday evening. According to Silina, the only persons charged with any crimes were Left Front coordinator Sergei Udaltsov and the Nashi members who organized the provocations, who were charged with violating the order of organizing public gatherings.

Udaltsov said that solitary pickets calling for the oppositionists to be released would continue no matter what.

The tactic of pretending to join a solitary picket in order to disrupt it is not uncommon.

Meanwhile, the US State Department has spoken out strongly against the New Year’s Eve crackdowns and Boris Nemtsov’s arrest in particular.

“We were pleased…that Moscow authorities had reversed their previous policy and decided to allow peaceful demonstrations. So we regret that these arrests have taken place, both in Moscow and St. Petersburg. We reiterate our – the importance of embracing and protecting universal values, including freedom of expression and assembly – they’re enshrined in the Russian constitution – as well as international agreements that Russia has signed,” Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley said on Monday.

“So we believe it is in Russia’s interest to promote freedom of expression and, as we noted, this is something that Russian leaders have endorsed publicly, but now they need to follow through and – but these kinds of arrests, we think, are contrary not only to commitments that Russia has made, but also to Russia’s long-term interest,” he concluded.

Russian legislators rejected the criticism entirely. “We denounce this as interference in the affairs of a separate state,” State Duma Deputy and United Russia member Mikhail Grishankov told Interfax on Tuesday.

According to Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, “the term ‘paralyzing sanctions’ is, of course, something we completely refuse to accept. Sanctions should follow the aim of strengthening the state of nuclear nonproliferation.”

The minister stressed that sanctions cannot be interpreted as something to be used to punish an entire country and its people.

When questioned about Russia’s plans to sell Iran their S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, Ryabkov said that a contract is already in place and Russia intends to fulfill it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressly asked that Russia scrap plans to sell the system to Iran in a meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev earlier this week, fearing that the system could help Iran stave off any possible attacks from Israel or the United States on its nuclear facilities.

Ryabkov said that recent delays in delivering the system were due to “technical problems” and dismissed questions regarding the two countries partnership on military technology as politically motivated.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had said earlier on Friday that Iran’s failure to cooperate with the international community on its nuclear program was “very alarming.” In an interview on Ekho Moskvy radio, Lavrov emphasized the importance of Russia’s relationship with Iran as a “close neighbor” and a “partner,” saying that what happens in Iran “concerns both our economic interests and our interests in regards to security.”

Lavrov also issued what, given Ryabkov’s later statement, appears to have been a serious caveat: “I don’t think that we [the United States and Russia] have a united position [on Iran], because for both the United States and for us – and this is a position where we agree – it is of principle importance to prevent violations of the state of nuclear nonproliferation. This, most definitely, is our common, united position. However,” he continued, “we do not agree one hundred percent on the methods for its realization.”

Media reports said the protest, organized by the Kremlin-backed Nashi youth movement, drew around 10,000 people. Nashi, meanwhile, said the turnout was 20,000, while eye-witness observers described it as low as 3,000.

Kristina Potupchik, the Nashi press-secretary, explained the aims of the demonstration in an earlier press release: “On November 2nd we will take stock of Halloween, the American ‘holiday of hell.’ Ten thousand of our activists will gather by the US embassy to explain that American politics, American elections with a budget of 5 billion dollars, [John] McCain’s rating, the world-wide economic crisis– all these American amusements are paid for with the lives of thousands.”

Demonstrators wrote the names of the so-called victims of “everything that America had brought on the world” on thousands of pumpkins and small American flags, and lit candles in the winter squash. One observer noted the name of influential Chechen clan leader Ruslan Yamadayev on one pumpkin. Yamadayev, a former delegate in the State Duma, was killed in an unsolved shooting in September.

To make room for the event, officers of the militsiya and the OMON special forces re-routed traffic around central Moscow. Participants, who hailed from distant regions as far as Ossetia, were bussed to the embassy, where a stage had been erected. Speakers then recounted stories of deaths caused by aggressive American foreign policy and American troops.

The demonstration, which started at 7PM, was over in two hours. The stage was completely dismantled by around 4 AM.

—

For photos from the event, visit grani.ru.

Participants in the discussion, largely Russian experts on the United States, disagreed widely on what the result of the American election would mean for Russia.

The event was held in line with a presentation of The Audacity of Hope, a memoir and policy book written by Obama.

Valery Garbuzov, the deputy director of the Institute of USA and Canada in Russia’s Academy of Sciences, said that people in US have been “living by these elections” for over a year. In his opinion, the active nationwide discussion of the problems facing the US in recent years shows that American democracy is not in crisis. “These grueling, expensive, exhausting American elections still accomplish their goal after all,” he said.

Andrei Kartunov, the president of the New Eurasia Foundation, said the current US presidential campaign was the most interesting he had ever watched. “These days, two Americas have collided,” he said. “McCain is the last major politician of the 20th century. He formed his beliefs under the conditions of the Cold War, and fought in Vietnam, which naturally left a mark on him. Obama is the first major politician of the 21st century. This is a completely different generation and upbringing.”

Kartunov cautioned the audience not to expect sudden changes in US foreign policy, and said no one should assume that relations between Moscow and Washington will immediately improve. An Obama presidency would present Russia with new opportunities and new challenges, he said. “It was relatively easy with Bush. The Republican administration made so many mistakes in recent years that Moscow could easily polemicize against it.” If Obama becomes president, Russian-American relations may become more interesting and more complicated, the expert believes.

Another expert, Alexander Karavanov, proposed that an Obama victory could cause new problems for Russia. Drawing a parallel with president John F. Kennedy, who also had many sympathizers in the US and the USSR, Karavanov suggested this wasn’t enough. Under Kennedy’s watch, the major event in Soviet-American relations was the Cuban Missile Crisis. “The advantage of a Republican president above a Democratic one is that he will not need to prove his patriotism every day,” Karavanov said. “To answer any doubts of his patriotism, John McCain can show the scars from his Vietnam injuries.” Karavanov also noted that the most significant breakthroughs in Soviet-American relations came during the Nixon and Reagan administrations with a Republican in office. Democrat Jimmy Carter’s term, meanwhile, saw a crisis in Russian-American relations.

Responding to Karavanov, Andrei Kartunov remarked that one should not equate all of Russia with the Russian authorities. “Of course, for adherents of ‘sovereign democracy,’ who profess Russia as a fortress under siege, a McCain victory would be beneficial. Because McCain is the confirmation of all their ideas about America, about how it doesn’t change, about how it always conducts anti-Russian policies.”

Voter turnout in the United States is expected to reach an all-time high this year. 36 US states have already begun early voting, while the general election will take place on November 4th.

According to the aggregate of latest polls, John McCain trails Barack Obama by around 7 points.

—

For more information:

Watch John McCain and Barack Obama discuss Russian during the first presidential debate on September 26th.

Putin the Staunch Republican?

Kasparov-Obama Should Stand Up to Russia’s Regime

The screening follows a recent tradition of airing one-sided “documentaries” that voice conspiracy theories and put Russia at odds with the West. Films recently broadcast on Russian state television have asserted that the West was responsible for democratic “color revolutions” in former Soviet countries and that the West was behind Russia’s war in Chechnya.

The article below first ran on the Grani.ru independent online newspaper.

An Open Order
Boris Sokolov
Grani.ru
9/15/08

“Zero: an investigation into 9/11,” a film by Italian journalist Giulietta Chiesa and his French colleague Thierry Meyssan, went practically unnoticed in the world. Its authors openly complained about this as they spoke on Channel One, hinting at machinations by America’s intelligence agencies. In Russia, on the other hand, the film was shown on TV on Friday evening, during prime-time – on the “Private Screening” program, which gave it an audience of many millions. In and of itself, this proves that the Cold War is in full swing, at least on Russian television. Mr. Chiesa laments that “the level of democracy in the world is very low. And with every year, it becomes lower and lower.” And that’s why the Italian departed for Russia in search of genuine democracy.

Chiesa and Meyssan’s basic thesis is that the September 11th terrorist attacks were organized by the Americans themselves, in order to justify limitations on democratic freedoms in America and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, and in order to stave off a crisis in the American economy. Almost all the participants in the discussion readily agreed with them. The debates only centered on who in particular among the Americans was behind the terrorist acts. Some insisted that it was the multi-national corporations and intelligence agencies, carrying out imperial designs, with the involvement of individuals within the administration, but not the highest ranks –not the President and not the Secretary of State. This resembled Soviet times, when all the problems in the world were blamed on American imperialists, presented as anonymous monopolies and equally anonymous senior officials in the CIA and the Pentagon. Presidents and Secretaries of State shouldn’t be directly offended, since negotiations have to be led with them. The second version consisted of the idea that President Bush was directly involved in the conspiracy behind September 11th. Well, I guess this shows the relative freedom of speech as compared with the communist era, and moreover, everyone knows that Bush is working his last months in the White House.

The film’s authors call on Dario Fo (presented in the credits as a Nobel laureate), as a leading expert of the explosions on September 11th. The overwhelming majority of Russian viewers will remain convinced that there is a distinguished scholar before them, who has knowledge about airplanes, explosions and fires. In actual fact, Dario Fo is an Italian playwright, who received a Nobel prize for literature in 1997 for “emulat[ing] the jesters of the Middle Ages in scourging authority and upholding the dignity of the downtrodden.” He appears before us as a descendant of jesters as well.

From a professional point of view, the film is made extremely primitively. It is based almost exclusively on “talking heads,” and presents only those witnesses and experts who criticize the official version, that the terrorist attacks were organized by Al-Qaeda, led by [Osama] bin Laden (several of them look to be mentally unbalanced). Along those same lines are the endless, mesmerizing repetitions of captions with the author’s theses. Testimony and evidence from adherents of the official version is not mentioned in any way in the film. This is roughly like taking only the testimonies showing the innocence of the defendants during the Nuremberg trial, and ignoring all the materials in the extensive file documenting their guilt.

It is interesting that both the film’s authors and the participants of the discussion [that followed], having spoken out against American globalism and defended the dignity of the downtrodden peoples, demonstrate a barefaced contempt to these same peoples. The theme of the discussion sounded like this: “How could these 19 arabs do something like this? They couldn’t even learn to operate a plane!” True, the main question then remains unanswered – who was at the helm of the planes that crashed into the twin-towers. Could it be true that CIA agents turned from through-and-through WASPs into fanatic-suicide bombers? Here, to Chiesa and Meyssan’s assistance came Geidar Dzhemal, a homegrown Islamist-conspiracy theorist, who proposes that the planes were controlled from the ground by expert hackers, who changed the autopilot program on the killing-planes. No one bothered to refute this delusion.

The films authors, and the organizers of the discussion sought to convince viewers that two realities are competing on equal terms in the world: the official and alternative versions of the events of September 11th. Proponents of both versions, they say, have their own arguments, and even in the hard science field, experts at times have directly opposite opinions. Therefore, they say, the choice between them is a matter of faith. The discussion moderator, Alexander Gordon, tried at the start to play to objectivity and the cooperative search for truth, but by the end, confessed frankly that he had long ago come to a firm conclusion that the American establishment was behind the September 11th tragedy, just like the other terrorist acts on US territory.

Proponents of the official version were chosen essentially from obedient sparring-partners, whose arguments amounted to saying that Chiesa and Meyssan’s version could not be truth simply because this would be intolerable from a ethical point of view: after all, if would imply that the US leadership would kill their own citizens for political gains. But here, director Vladimir Khotinenko, political analyst Vitaly Tretyakov, and other adherents of the American conspiracy theory immediately took the floor, assuring the viewers that for the American authorities to kill even thousands, even millions, was as easy as batting an eye.

Mr. Tretyakov put forth the thesis that the answer to the question of who profited from the September 11th terrorist attacks clearly pointed to the American government. The majority of the audience backed him enthusiastically. But no one did clarify what exactly the American advantage was. Maybe it was the need to hold a significant contingent of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come? Or high oil prices, affecting the American economy in far from the best manner? If they really had some desire to figure out the reasons for the tragedy from the “who profited” principle, it would have been more logical to note that for Russia, the growth in energy prices which started after September 11th turned into a golden rain of petrodollars and the opportunity to demonstrate its solidarity with the US in the fight with international terrorism. Which for many years created the illusion of Russian-American partnership in the world. But we didn’t hear this kind of discussion.

Chiesa, Meyssan and their adherents propose the following circumstance as the main argument favoring their version of events. After September 11, 2001, there were no more terrorist attacks in the US. Which means that the American intelligence agencies were accessorial to the terrorist acts, while terrorists, Islamic or otherwise, do not have a real opportunity to perform such massive terrorist acts on American territory. But, following this absurd logic, one must come the following conclusions. Since there haven’t been any explosions of buildings in Moscow since September 1999, it means, that they were organized by the Russian intelligence agencies. Since after the “Nord-Ost” [theater siege] and Beslan [school takeover], there haven’t been any new seizures of hundreds of hostages, it means that those terrorist acts were also an inside job by the FSB.

At the end, the discussion smoothly turned to the present Russian-Georgian conflict. It was not in vain that President Medvedev recently said that for Russia, August 8th (the start of the war with Georgia) –was almost like September 11th for the US. Naturally, the assertions poured out, that the notion of Russian aggression against Georgia, spread through the Western world, was the results of the same kind of propaganda as the official version of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, the US, with Georgia’s help, in truth wants to engineer a new cold war, to solve its domestic and foreign problems. As result, the discussion closed with a hysterical call from one of the film’s authors, for Russia to defend the world from the American predators who are tearing the planet to pieces. A plea most insincere.

translation by theotherrussia.org

“We cannot change the situation on say, the American market,” he said. “The Americans will have to sort out their mortgage system and other financial instruments themselves, though, to put things plainly, they have let us all down.”

Russia’s two major indexes, the RTS and MICEX, have taken a tumble in recent weeks, and closed for the day at more than two-year lows.

According to Medvedev, there are “two issues we clearly need to think about. First, despite the various difficulties, Russian companies’ assets are still undervalued in many cases, and this creates potential for growth. Second, given that our market is still growing, volatility is an inherent trait and this means that there can be quite serious fluctuations in evaluations, and this has both advantages and disadvantages.”

“These are not the easiest times for the stock market,” Medvedev said. “Unfortunately, there are objective reasons for this situation that lie beyond the power of our financial authorities and are not related to economic factors in our own country.

“Essentially, all of the financial markets and the international financial markets are going through difficult times. At the same time we also have problems of our own.”

“Trends on the stock market have been quite complex of late. But we do not think they are indicative of long-term problems. This is more likely the market’s reaction to a number of unfavorable circumstances, a number of difficulties at the international level and in our own economy.”

Medvedev has previously accused the US of initiating a global economic crisis. In June, Medvedev spoke at the World Economic Forum in St. Petersburg (video). He explained that the huge role of the US in the world economy was one of the major reasons for what he said may be the worst economic crises since the Great Depression.

“The failure to properly assess risk by the largest financial corporations, combined with the aggressive financial policies of the world’s largest economy, have led not only to losses for those corporations,” he said, “but unfortunately have impoverished the majority of people on the planet.”

According to Zavarzin, precision-guided weaponry may be installed on Kaliningrad’s border regions with Poland.

Russia is acting tough after Warsaw signed agreements on locating an American missile defense base housing 10 interceptor rockets in Poland, some 185 kilometers from Russian soil.

Responding to a journalist’s question, Zavarzin said that there was no present need to put nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. However, he said the proposal had been floated, and that it “does not fall under the scope of agreements and negotiations on strategic stability, which we are holding with the Americans.” The decision, he said, was ultimately left to the commander-in-chief. At present, the colonel-general said, Russia needs to modernize its surface, underwater and coastal divisions.

Mikhail Babich, Zavarzin’s deputy on the committee, told Gazeta.ru that placing a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic was a hostile act on the part of the US, and confirmed that Russia was planning a symmetrical response.

“We are developing a series of measures for a symmetrical response to the USA in the context of the deployment of ABM [ballistic missile defense] in Poland and the Czech Republic, and other hostile acts,” Babich said. “They are being developed to guarantee Russia’s safety and as a response in case of a strike on our territory.”

Meanwhile, defense experts questioned by the publication were skeptical about the need for precision-guided weapons and tactical nuclear arms in Russia’s western enclave. Russia’s army, they said, had other hardware that already guaranteed the safety of the country’s western border.

—

Related stories:

US General Warns Russia Over Cuban Bomber Deployment

Missile Defense and Hot Air from the Russian Foreign Ministry

The article first ran in the Grani.ru online newspaper.

—

Coercion to McCain
August 29, 2008
Ilya Milshtein

Prominent Russian political figure Vladimir Putin is a staunch supporter of the US Republican Party. One can only guess at the reasons. Maybe, the word “democrat” is disagreeable to him from childhood. It’s also not impossible that our premier generally gravitates to conservatism in all its most diverse forms – from the East German to the North American. By nature and purely professionally. The KGB is a conservative organization.

One way or another, our national leader has “voted” for the republicans for at least four years already.

In the fall of 2004, the Russian president sternly spoke out against democrat John Kerry. Literally equating the liberal candidate to Al-Qaeda, Putin said that a defeat of Bush would be “a grandiose victory for international terrorism.” He repeated this thought he had grown fond of at the moment when America was counting the votes collected by the contenders. If George wins, Putin said, this would mean that “the American public did not allow itself to be frightened, and made a wise choice.”

As you know, the American public lived up to his expectation.

Incidentally, debates had already started then as to how sensible Putin’s own decision to participate in the electoral campaign of Bush junior was. For example, that same fall, he actively supported Yanukovich as a candidate in Ukraine, and twice congratulated him with victory, which didn’t end very well. Both for Yanukovich and for Putin. There were even talks that if the Russian leader had behaved more humbly, then his protege would have had more of a chance. However, it’s already impossible to believe this, as the story doesn’t know that potential inclination. Especially when is deals with the national leader.

One can still assume that Putin’s heartfelt speeches didn’t hurt Bush. After all, they hadn’t completely forgotten in America, who was the first to express solidarity on September 11th. Relations between the Kremlin and the White House were already lukewarm, but years still remained before another cold war. Overall, one can assume that Putin helped his friend little, but expressed his own candid opinion. Which was what he was aiming for.

Today, when they are starting to use [Putin’s] name to scare small children in America, and when children seriously get scared, one must exercise caution when expressing sympathies for our premier. One cannot simply call on the American electorate to vote for McCain like this, saying that otherwise, bin Laden will celebrate his latest victory over the US. One must weigh every word. Otherwise, Obama will become president.

In yesterday’s interview with CNN [(English transcript)], Vladimir Vladimirovich found these words. He told the American voter that the war in Georgia, probably, was intentionally provoked by someone, in order to “to aggravate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates for the U.S. presidency.” True, this was just a “hypothesis” as of yet, but “if it is confirmed,” then everything will become clear to Putin. Both about the Georgian war, and about the dirty, bloody election techniques in the US.

Every word here is worth its weight in gold, and each is clear as crystal.

It is hard to accept that Putin, one of the most informed people on the planet, doesn’t know something. And who could strive for “escalation” and win percents over it? Only McCain, which some of our political figures and experts have already spoken out about –as a rule, those who welcome the coming cold war epoch with a joyous song.

Now Putin has joined with them. Taking into account past experience, Vladimir Vladimirovich today acts from the opposite side. It’s as if, in Ukraine four years ago, he had recruited the local people into the ranks of the “Orangists” and twice congratulated Yushchenko with a glorious victory. He accuses the republicans of initiating the war in the Caucasus, knowing full well, that the majority of Americans won’t believe him. Instead, they’ll clearly adopt it: this unpleasant Russian is against our John. That’s why many of those who waver between McCain and Obama, will now vote for the republican candidate. Simply because Putin alluded to him with disapproval.

The time at hand is completely different, after all. It is a very cold time, forcing Americans, with a sigh, to remember the late Ronald Reagan, with his firmness in leading the operation which today can be called “coercion into perestroika.” It is exactly McCain who is conducting his electoral campaign with Reagan’s name on his lips.

In a word, just a couple more of these interviews on American TV channels, and our cunning premier will celebrate a victory with the republicans. Why they are so dear to him is uncertain. But one wants to believe, that coming into power, John McCain won’t forget the efforts of his Russian partner in the cold war, and will reward him with some kind of secret decoration.

translation by theotherrussia.org

“I think we should stand strong and indicate that that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line, for the United States of America,” General Norton Schwartz said at a confirmation hearing in Washington on Tuesday. The General is nominated to be the U.S. Air Force chief of staff.

The General’s statement came in response to an article published in the Izvestia newspaper (Rus), which quoted a high-ranking unnamed source within Russia’s military establishment. The source indicated that Russia may bring strategic nuclear bombers to Cuba in response to the construction of a US Missile Defense Shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. “While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba,” the source reportedly said. It remained unclear if bombers would be stationed in Cuba, or would use bases there to refuel.

Russia has spoken out vehemently against the construction of a US anti-missile system close to its borders, and has called the system a threat to its national security. Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that the country would “be forced to react not in a diplomatic fashion but with military methods,” if elements of the system went forward.

Russian authorities declined to comment on the Izvestia report, although some military officials welcomed any steps that would enhance Russia’s global influence. Mikhail Oparin, a former commander of a Russian base in Cuba, which was closed in 2001, told the Interfax news agency that “Russia’s air fleet must work towards a presence in every corner of the world.”

Shortly after the Czech Republic signed an agreement with the US on the placement of anti-missile radar there, oil shipments from Russia were halved. Transneft, the Russian state-run pipeline monopoly claimed this was the result of technical reasons, although some experts saw political motivations. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin later ordered the government to ensure that there be no more shortfalls.

The US has maintained that its anti-missile system is targeted at defending against a possible attack from Iran, and that it poses no threat to Russian security.

Still, the placement of the system has drawn wide public scorn, with various proposals on how to respond.

Alexander Pikaev, the head of the disarmament and conflict settlement department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, spoke of one method to RIA Novosti (Rus):

“If Russian consumers were to forgo Czech beer in protest of the deployment of American radar, after, of course, all the ratification procedures, which may not even take place there, then this would likely be a serious response, more serious than restricting the supply of oil or a note of protest by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”